readfetch_feedback

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses two things annotations don't: the call is FREE (cost is a real differentiator in this suite) and it must be bound to a prior request via X-Request-Id. readOnlyHint=false is consistent with submitting a report, so no contradiction. It stops short of saying what happens to a submitted report or whether any confirmation is returned, which for a write-flagged endpoint is the one missing behavioral beat.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Roughly two sentences with the highest-value token ("FREE") front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause — cost, action, binding requirement, exclusion — carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

All three parameters are required and there is no output schema, so the description should cover the input contract and at least gesture at what comes back. It covers binding and scope well but omits message constraints and any indication of the response, leaving an agent unable to predict the outcome of the call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33% (only request_id is documented), so the description is expected to compensate. It does explain the request_id origin and implicitly maps "integration, docs or site" onto three of the four category enum values, but it says nothing about the message parameter (including the 500-character cap) or the "other" category, so the compensation is partial.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb and resource: "report integration, docs or site issues for a prior call," which pins down both the action and the object. It also carves out a boundary against the paid-dispute route (/v1/claims), though it never references any of the readfetch_* siblings (fetch, crawl, scrape, etc.), so an agent gets no explicit routing contrast within the tool family.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

States the context of use (issues arising from a prior call in the categories integration/docs/site) and gives an explicit when-not with a named alternative: paid delivery disputes go to /v1/claims. It does not clarify the reverse direction — e.g. whether this tool is ever correct without a prior request_id — leaving the prerequisite as an inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.